If do not want to use my suggestion from last year, then I say make it the USA match.

Well, in a preliminary discussion with just a few people, there is a thought that we should try a different tiebreaker. We were thinking that perhaps it would be something you had suggested: assigning factors to each slot individually. Could you write more about how that might work in a tiebreaker?

I think it is very likely that the teams still tie (under the not so likely assumption that they tie on matches and games in the first place).

If GANG played team Drake our lineups would probably be (not even knowing who his teammates will be - unless he produces an Angel out of a box):

GANG:
EU (Trucker rocks)
US (and so does Kasi)
TAG (sorry Hecki, but our teammates rock)
AAT (we know that Drake is the best AAT player)

Team Drake:
AAT (Drake knows that he is the best AAT player)
TAG (and he knows that Trucker and Kasi rock)
EU (now let's assume Drake rates Kasi higher than Trucker to show that it doesn't make a difference)
US

If - according to expectations - Team Drake wins AAT and TAG, GANG wins US and EU, both end up with 7 points (4*1+3*1+2*0+1*0) for the Tiebreaker.

Anyway, it is possible that they still tie - so we need a final tiebreaker just in case.

May seem complicated, but is simply multiplying a few numbers, and it is just for a tie breaker which might not even come up.

Drake,
You have confused me with this example. Does this match example need a tie-breaker?
Team 1 has 1.5 points and Team 2 has 2.5, so no tiebreaker is needed.

Also, as I look at applying your system as tiebreaker, I seem to note the Tiebreaker is only needed to decide 'advancing to the knock-out/play-off phase'. So wouldn't captains already know results and place the line-up to fullest advantage since they already know the results?

Is there a different tiebreaker being talked about here, one that is done before a match?

Oh I am sorry and I think I get when you mean to apply this tie-breaker. It is for during a KO match, thus captains can put in the line-up with priority system.
And it is interesting that in rules there is not mention of this tiebreaker. The only mention we have is referring to rules section under clash scoring.In determining overall records for advancing to the knock-out/play-off phase, Clashes won is primary determining factor. In case of a tie, First tiebreaker is clashes won, then matches won, then points won, then TAG result, then AAT result, then US/EU result, then USA result.So what has occurred is the application of this tiebreaker is done to the KO round match. So reality is, we are talking about a specific situation where there is no written rule at this point.
On an aside, I know some feel TAG is best tiebreaker since it involves 2 players of a team, and this is a team event. This was reason TAG was placed where it was, and AAT was placed next since again, the thought was FUSION should be different than the usual map US dominance of all the other tournaments.

Why should the team with the best TAG team win ties versus a team with the better USA/EU or AAT player?

My idea just lets each team rank the importance of the 4 different matches. So a team with a strong TAG team has the same chance of winning the tie breaker as a team with a Strong USA/AAT/EU player.

It is very similar to the rule used in NC this year, modified to make sense for having 4 different formats.

This idea is for getting into the KO and during the KO phase.

My idea doesn't create any new games that need to be played or anything else. All that changes is when captains send in lineups, they order them with their strongest format first, and weakest last.

The odds of it going to this tie breaker for determining who gets into the RR is small.

The odds of it going to this tie breaker during KO phase is a little greater, and there is a small chance it still results in a tie, so could leave current tie breaker rule added after this one. The "then TAG result, then...".

Drake,
You have confused me with this example. Does this match example need a tie-breaker?
Team 1 has 1.5 points and Team 2 has 2.5, so no tiebreaker is needed.

Yes, bad example - it wouldn't goto tie breaker in the first place!

The Tinman wrote on Mon, 13 January 2014 09:37

A tie should be broken by a game.

This is probably true, but most time tournaments are running barely on schedule, so adding in another game or match can be difficult. In KO, playing the whole match over would be cool, but not realistic.

The odds of it going to this tie breaker during KO phase is a little greater, and there is a small chance it still results in a tie, so could leave current tie breaker rule added after this one. The "then TAG result, then...".

That makes good sense in my eyes.
Fusion is the event to try things out, so why not try it

I think any tiebreaker rule that gives the win based on the order players were listed is ridiculous. A tie should be broken by a game, not because someone was listed first.

With this notation, could we make a proposal: For a tie in the KO round, winner will be decided by captains submitting 1 player (or team if tag) who can be free to play a match before the last day of the KO round (or on the last day if possible). Captains of the two tied teams can discuss which game of the 4 types will be used for the 1 (or 3)game tiebreaker. By mutual agreement of the two captains, we will use the game of their choice. If they cannot agree, then the US board will be used.